Sitting around on a Sunday morning – started thinking about solarpunk and Andrew Carnegie. Wealth inequality and the problems it causes dominates our headlines. Common media topics include re-enacting the French Revolution or ‘eating the rich,’ but is there a better way? Are we doomed to repeat the failed hatreds and phyrric victories of the past?
Not necessarily. You know, some ultra-rich people decided to use their wealth to make others’ lives better. Modern examples of wealthy philanthropists include people like Taylor Swift, Dolly Parton, and MacKenzie Scott come to mind, as do Chuck Feeney, Gordon and Betty Moore, and Barron Hilton. These are great, but they all remind me of one historical figure – Andrew Carnegie.
Yes, yes – Carnegie was a robber-baron – I’m not here to sprinkle pixie dust on his legacy. What I am curious about is whether we can use his example to encourage – not force – modern robber-barons to turn the page on impending apocalypse. Is it possible for Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos to commit to making real, selfless, systemic change through philanthropy? That’s what the rest of this post is about.
Real Change Won’t Be Easy
Short answer: Yes, but it won’t be easy. Let’s start with the truth – the world we live in isn’t their fault. Yes, they exploited a system to make billions and trillions of dollars – but did they build the system? No. They merely exploited it. I’m not excusing their behavior, but how are we to ask them to empathize with us if we cannot empathize with them? So let’s try a little empathy, as a social exercise: Hate the game, not the player.
Now back to Carnegie – he gave away nearly all his fortune to build public libraries, education, and cultural institutions that created lasting infrastructure for society. His giving was transparent, massive relative to his wealth, and aimed at empowering people over generations. By contrast, modern billionaires have given very little. What’s missing here? I’m no sociologist, but a lot can be found in Carnegie’s 1889 essay: ‘The Gospel of Wealth.’
In that essay, Carnegie expressed some personal truths. Among them, he felt wealthy people have a moral duty to use their surplus to benefit society, giving needed to be thoughtful and controlled in ways that promote lasting social good, and that wealth should empower self-improvement. Carnegie saw wealthy individuals as ‘servant-leaders’ of their fortunes, responsible for distributing wealth for public beefit. ‘The duty of the rich was to live modest lifestyles.’ Ostentatious displays of wealth were immoral. The point of all this, in Carnegie’s analysis was: “Help those who will help themselves, to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so.”
The impact of Carnegie on modern philanthropy is astounding, and also – it saved him from public scorn. Carnegie himself lived by these principles, donating much of his fortune to build over 2,500 public libraries, educational institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, and other philanthropic projects. His blueprint of self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-direted change is still something modern ultra-wealthy persons can use today.
Consequences of Giving
To talk about giving, we have to talk about the consequences. Why haven’t ultra-rich philanthropists just ‘given away’ their money? Because it’s not that easy. Without excusing bad behavior, let’s look at the facts. There continues to be tension between wealth accumulation and meaningful giving. Meanwhile, some ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill. Historically, it’s not enough to give away your money – you also have to overcome the systemic cynicism that accompanies billion-dollar altruism. I don’t have the answer for this – but it helps to define the question better – can we culturally create the framework for people to give without shame?
Let’s face it: ultra-rich philanthropists look like suckers to unscrupulous people. Take Gwenyth Paltrow’s comments on that ski-crash trial. It was clear the plaintiff was looking for a fast payday and Paltrow wisely chose to defend herself. I dislike Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop as much as the next person, but good for her for standing up to a low life.
There has to be a way for us to meet in the middle. Think of how much benefit we could bring to society if we convinced the ultra-wealthy to adopt Chuck Feeney-style ‘humble giving.’
Is it about encouraging them to adopt a lower-profile, impact-first mindset might help move away from the perception of philanthropy as a tool for control or branding? How do we encourage them to active, transparent giving that delivers tangible, immediate benefits?
Nobody’s asking me what I’d say if I had the chance to have that conversation. But if I did, it’d probably sound like this:
The Script
Me: Hey you – I know you’re probably freaked out about how philanthropy projects have gone sideways. It’s made me think about your situation and I wanted to share something that might resonate with you.
Them: You’ve got three minutes.
Me: Chuck Feeney, right? Guy gave away nearly all his fortune during his lifetime, living modestly and focusing on “giving while living”?
Them: I’ve heard of him. Inspiring, but non-realistic in today’s climate.
Me: Maybe not. There’s a lot to learn from his approach. I know you want to be strategic and flexible about how you invest in causes.
Them: And?
Me: So here’s the thing: Feeney’s model was about active, transparent giving that creates immediate, tangible impact. He spent down his fortune within his lifetime, which meant he could see the results and adjust quickly. That urgency and humility made his giving powerful and personal.
Them: So, what? Strategic, long-term investment is important for systemic change. Feeney was outdated and naive. No one makes personal sacrifices like that anymore.
Me: Fair point – the criticism has been made, and it’s important to recognize. But what people like Feeney and Andrew Carnegie really pushed for was effective philanthropy-he warned against indiscriminate charity that might foster dependency. Instead, he wanted philanthropy to encourage self-reliance and dignity. Today, that translates into supporting programs that build skills, knowledge, and opportunity.
Them: Okay, but how does that apply to modern billionaires? The world’s problems are so complex now.
Me: Exactly why Carnegie’s model is still relevant. He was one of the first to apply rigorous management and strategic thinking to philanthropy-what we now call “impact-driven giving.” His foundations brought in experts, evaluated outcomes, and adapted strategies. Modern philanthropists can learn from that: be creative, treat giving as an investment, and focus on long-term social good rather than quick fixes.
Them: It’s not completely deranged but you’re making some sense. I’ll think about it.
Me: It’s definitely worth considering. It balances responsibility, impact, and legacy in a way that’s both practical and inspiring-something that could guide today’s billionaires toward meaningful change without losing sight of the complexities involved.
Them: I *said* I’d think about it. We’re done here.
New Strategies to Better Outcomes
Would it work? Well, what have we tried and how has that turned out? Oligarchs read social media, they have the newspaper – even ones they don’t own (Am I talking to Jeff Bezos’ social media team right now? If so, hi!). They’re afraid of us, they know that the institutional systems they put in place to keep themselves in place are only as solid as they can continue paying for them. That has to be so exhausting.
So, what if we try to empathize with them? Would that be worse what we’ve been doing? Seriously – how has the ‘manufacture an increasingly meaningless chunk of public outrage’ strategy worked for us? Is it working, or has it been weaponized and manipulated through AI and technology?
What if we started an empathetic, ongoing discussion about bridging the wealth gap? How about if we were honest with ourselves: bridge the gap bridging because the gap needs to be bridged? Would that be wrong? How about trying a ‘solarpunk Andrew Carnegie’ strategy, where we encourage ultra-wealthy philathropy by re-imagining the Gospel of Wealth for 2025?
I mean, sure it *might* work. You got your active wealth stewardship for ecological and social good. Then you’d talk about community ownership, rejecting Social Darwinism, blah blah blah. Finally, there’d be something like sustainable legacy, modesty and responsibility in wealth use. Usual nonsense you can find in 30 seconds on ChatGPT. But think bigger.
A Solarpunk Gospel of Wealth transforms Carnegie’s ideas into a framework where wealth becomes a tool. Wealth for ecological restoration, social equity, and community empowerment. Replacing Social Darwinism with solidarity, individualism with cooperation, and philanthropy with systemic change toward a just, sustainable future. Solarpunk could give a framework for rich people to go ‘oh, this is what I’m supposed to be doing with all this money!’
An Andrew Carnegie Solarpunk future, a human reality. Imagine how beautiful a world that would be.
